Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Does the mechanic of activating a strategem in game make you feel?

I hate them honestly.

1) They took away units unique abilities and turn them into stratagems (many times letter other units use them too) which make it harder to use, and also makes balancing them harder. This takes away some uniqueness feeling in units as well.
2) Many of them are gotcha mechanics which is terrible for the game
3) There are way to many that are game changing, so you need to know all the most important ones for each army making the game harder against new foes.
4) They make some units insanely stupidly strong which then makes balancing much harder, when a Troupe Master has a 80% chance to kill a Knight for 75pts but spending 6CP to do it, how do you calculate that?
5) Its also just more game tracking.

When I first herd about CP right when 8th was being announced for it i thought about some other war games with command points (or commander points, commander actions, etc..) when you played the game like GW games IGOUGO but you have CP to create a alternative action system. (You declare all moves and use CP to interrupt like declare a unit is stationary and when another unit walks in front spend a CP to shoot or hide).

As of right now, its just a feels bad system.

I think they are fun to use.

they make me feel like Im playing a game of yu-gi-oh with EXTREMELY expensive cards.

The general lifespan of units that i spend 40+ hours painting that then get removed in a single volley of shooting also helps to enhance that "this is an extremely extremely expensive CCG with unnecessary props" feeling.

I think it would be cool if they had been integrated into the game a different way, seeing as there hadn't been a card element. I think if they and the Maelstrom objective cards had been mixed into decks of unit cards to make armies, then they would have been a good idea. Between adding cards, and a pool of points to play said cards, and some of the specific implementations (ignore morale, fight twice at 3 or shoot twice at 2, etc) they're a bit of a dog's breakfast.

Having strategems where you could use them to balance out unequal armies, or invest in them at the cost of units (material) would have been neat. Like suppose you're going to get boned by tanks, you could have a strategem about attacking the tank depot so that the tanks rolling doubles or triples did something.

Strategems requiring command points and reinforcement points are bunk, since there's too many conditions to pull off to be worth it, especially compared to stuff that just multiplies existing material that's already in position.

Then there's the cognitive load aspect of having a new set of rules (conditions, costs, and effects) to memorize...

My primary opinion is that unit-specific stratagems should be integrated into each units datasheet for readability. Its a pain to look for them and link them to the proper unit.
My second opinion, is that non-unit-specific stratagems should be standardized and part of the core rules.
And finally, they should only be usable in < 1000 pts games

Gives me MtG flashbacks of "I'm attacking with my creature and will tap a forest to play giant growth". I got into 40k to get away from that mess so anything that feels like it is automatically sapping a lot of the fun from the hobby. Needing to memories a bunch of faction specific stratagems feels a lot worse than trying to remember all the USRs and unit type rules back in past editions.

That said I also dislike taking unit functionality and attaching them to the whole stratagem system. Shouldn't need to use command points to throw an EMP grenade and apparently the Tau only have 1 EMP grenade available per turn (logistical drone has to deliver it I guess). This sort of "use a resource to do an ability" also feels like Company of Heroes with using munitions to pull a panzerfaust out of thin air. It works fine in that game but I don't like it in a table top game, especially when said game involves list building where your equiping your models before the battle.

 Vankraken wrote:
Gives me MtG flashbacks of "I'm attacking with my creature and will tap a forest to play giant growth". I got into 40k to get away from that mess so anything that feels like it is automatically sapping a lot of the fun from the hobby. Needing to memories a bunch of faction specific stratagems feels a lot worse than trying to remember all the USRs and unit type rules back in past editions.

That said I also dislike taking unit functionality and attaching them to the whole stratagem system. Shouldn't need to use command points to throw an EMP grenade and apparently the Tau only have 1 EMP grenade available per turn (logistical drone has to deliver it I guess). This sort of "use a resource to do an ability" also feels like Company of Heroes with using munitions to pull a panzerfaust out of thin air. It works fine in that game but I don't like it in a table top game, especially when said game involves list building where your equiping your models before the battle.

Oh it is 100% worst than USR, especially if you heavily trimmed the USR down to like 20 which should have been the case. Its not like every army doesn't have the same 15 rules anyways... Put the unique rules back onto units and give me back USR please!

 the_scotsman wrote:
they make me feel like Im playing a game of yu-gi-oh with EXTREMELY expensive cards.

The general lifespan of units that i spend 40+ hours painting that then get removed in a single volley of shooting also helps to enhance that "this is an extremely extremely expensive CCG with unnecessary props" feeling.

Basically this.

Amishprn86 also made some excellent points above but I'd also add:

- They create issues with balance because they were clearly designed for PL rather than Points. Hence, you're forever ending up with warlord traits and artefacts that are completely unbalanced because they all have to cost the exact same amount (as you pay for them via a 1CP stratagem, rather than with points like you always used to).

- So many stratagems are just 'kill more'. Sometimes it's rerolls, sometimes its shoot or fight twice, sometimes it's +1 to hit/wound, sometimes its mortal wounds, but the net result is that you get a burst of extra damage. And, in a game that already struggles to be anything more than 'damage' and 'moar damage', that's really not a useful addition.

- They are completely disconnected from anything happening on the table. It's like all the worst parts of games that revolve around wombo-combo mechanics, except that it requires zero setup. You don't need the right HQ or even any HQ in range of the unit you want to target. There's basically no way you can stop your opponent using stratagems because they don't interact with anything. This leads to them not feeling strategic at all, or even part of the game.

- This also goes back to the wargear front. I like being able to customise wargear on my models to both personalise them and also differentiate them from one another. e.g. in past editions I might have had an Archon with a Soul Trap and another without. Perhaps the Soul Trap indicated a particular interest of that Archon or was just a sign of his rank. But then in 8th the Soul Trap just became a stratagem. So suddenly every Archon had Schrödinger's Soul Trap, where it might or might not exist until you spent the CP at the relevant time. What was so wrong with me just being able to buy a Soul Trap if I wanted one? GW can't even pull the 'no model, no rules' dung because the second-newest Archon model literally had a Soul Trap.

Anyway, to get back to the question, I absolutely hate stratagems. Not only are they not remotely fun or interesting to use, they both destroy aspects of the game I did enjoy (wargear/personalisation), and also chew up a ton of design space that could be used for vastly more interesting mechanics.

I like them, but not universally. I enjoy deciding whether to invest my CPs in pre-game buffs or saving them for in-game shenanigans.

Ones that allow a player to do something during the other player's turn are generally good for my gaming experience. Counter-offensive, Auspex Scan, Smoke grenades/Lightning Fast Reflexes etc are all fine by me.

Stratagems that allow a unit to fight or shoot twice, on the other hand, are generally bad for my gaming experience. This is different from "fight on death" ones which are kind-of fun.

Stratagems that increase damage output or generate MWs should be handled with more care than GW has been doing.

AOS does it much much better.

A set of generic command abilities that can be applied to any unit (if in range of a character/leader), that offer tactical flexibility, at a cost. Everyone shares the abilities, they offer play and counterplay. Not reliant on memorising pages of them.

I voted yes, but there are some stratagems I would have preferred to stay unit abilities or Upgrades. Smoke or tankbuster bombs come to mind, or even daemonic shells for CSM. These are very minor Boni that get overshadowed by stronger stratagems usually, but add to the identity of a unit, so they shouldn't be hidden behind Command points.
I like stratagems that are reactions to your opponent and give you something to do when it's not your turn. Also some one-time special ability that would be hard to balance if it was always on is also nice as a stratagem.

Umbros wrote:
AOS does it much much better.

A set of generic command abilities that can be applied to any unit (if in range of a character/leader), that offer tactical flexibility, at a cost. Everyone shares the abilities, they offer play and counterplay. Not reliant on memorising pages of them.

AoS did for sure hit it out of the park with their CP system. But it would be very hard to do that to 40k.

Stratagems give me the tingly feels.

Nah, they're OK, it's just the quantity of them needs to be heavily reduced and what they do needs to be tactical, not additional AP or Damage type nonsense.

I think it would be cool if there were just one or two stratagems printed on a select few unit datasheets that were specific to the unit and one use only. Then have one sub-faction specific and one use only. The generic ones in the Core Rules can largely be left as is and can be used once per turn.

Voted no. Strats as is are more like magic abilities than strategic decisions - they generally offer all upside, no downside and are presented in a way that does not require any strategic thinking beyond budgeting your CP.

I'd much prefer strats if they had features like:
1. Selected pre-game like a deck building minigame, use the strat then discard the card. Now you have to plan ahead rather than just spamming your best strats.
2. Strats that give out boosts should also contain a negative aspect to represent the risk/reward of doing unusual actions. A units statline is meant to represent how effective they are at certain tasks, it is silly that there are stratagems that massively boost effectiveness with no downside (as it begs the question, why can a chaos marine only get veterans of the long war while you have CP left - do they forget how to fight effectively when you run out?). An example of an upside/downside style strat could be "veterans of the long war - disregarding their personal safety, the chaos marine unleashes a brutal assault - get +1 to wound this phase, but for the remainder of the battle round they cannot benefit from cover". Now you have to ask yourself, is it worth it?

I like the idea of them, just that extra little surge at a key moment, like a shield wall of Spartans yelling 'PUSH'.

However, there are too many of them, too many of them are overcosted and far too many of them are undercosted/or and OP. IIRC a stratagem was supposed to be about 20-30 points, but there's too many that turn a cheap unit into a blender, and then used turn after turn. (AdMech MW strat that could 1-shot Mortarion...)

A bunch need to be made once-per-game (not all of them) and some twice-per-game, that would curb basing entire units (and potentially armies) around them, but still allow fluffy things. Strats like fight twice, put units into reserve and strategic ploys should be once per game. They're supposed to be strategic after all. Battle tactics twice per game.

Then it would make the use of them actually count, and require thinking rather than spamming.

Would prefer defensive only strats. (to prolong the game and reduce impact of the first rounds)

I'd happily cut every Codex Stratagem from the game and keep the few core Strats in the BRB. Or just cut them completely.

I like the idea of stratagems in theory, I just really don't like the implementation.

What I like about them is that units can take specific actions sometimes to do special things. However I don't think it should be implemented in the way it is, either from a design or lore standpoint.

Here's a popular example of one that I like, Branched Nova Charge. It enables you to choose two options from the Nova reactor instead of one. However instead of a strat, this could just be a thing you could do on the model, with a downside, say on a 4+ you take a second MW from the Nova Reactor. (Or maybe, you just take a second mortal period, it would need to be balanced correctly obviously.)

Here's a popular one I dislike, Transhuman Physiology. This isn't something that should be able be turned on and off. Space Marine's by their nature have Transhuman physiology, it's not like that can concentrate harder to make themselves more resistant to Lascannons or anything. This should be something that's always on, but is less effective, maybe like 1-2's always fail.

You can go through most of the strats like this, either make them an ability that the unit can use by default and balance appropriately, or make them passives, and again balance appropriately. This also means that players will have access to a wide variety of creative ways to use their units, instead of thinking, "oh man, it would be really cool to have my Reiver's stop them from performing an action, but I really need to save that CP for Transhuman. It just funnels you into only using the same strats 95% of the time when there's no reason if a unit could do their special thing, they shouldn't be able to because some other unit on the other side of the table decided to do their special thing.

 Vankraken wrote:
Gives me MtG flashbacks of "I'm attacking with my creature and will tap a forest to play giant growth". I got into 40k to get away from that mess so anything that feels like it is automatically sapping a lot of the fun from the hobby. Needing to memories a bunch of faction specific stratagems feels a lot worse than trying to remember all the USRs and unit type rules back in past editions.

That said I also dislike taking unit functionality and attaching them to the whole stratagem system. Shouldn't need to use command points to throw an EMP grenade and apparently the Tau only have 1 EMP grenade available per turn (logistical drone has to deliver it I guess). This sort of "use a resource to do an ability" also feels like Company of Heroes with using munitions to pull a panzerfaust out of thin air. It works fine in that game but I don't like it in a table top game, especially when said game involves list building where your equiping your models before the battle.

I still like to play MtG. Important thing is that 40K & MtG don´t share mechanics otherwise you will get a messy game. Imagine to have the following requirement in MtG:

"In order to play the Lord of the Pit you also need to place a fully painted resin model of it (size of new Bloodthirster, cost 150 pounds, comes unpainted) at your table edge."

People would go nuclear. But in 40K anything goes.

I feel like this a slightly oddly worded question, but I can't quite explain why.

At any rate, they're not my favorite thing. Just another set of things to remember in a game that feels a bit overloaded with minutiae.

Cannot say that I am surprised by the results thus far…

I think many of them are flavorful and add a lot but it's just way too much to keep track of and play to be fun. In my opinion these should get incorporated into army and unit special rules, and all the +1/-1/re-roll strats should get dumpstered like the shoot/fight twice strats mostly did.

They're awful. 80% shouldn't even exist. The rest could be USR or artifacts. It's wayyy too much stuff to memorize if you're trying to play competitively and it's too hard to balance. If an artifact is too powerful you can just bump the points up, same with a unit getting a powerful USR. If they went away, I would go back to playing 40k. As is, 95% of my games nowadays are from the specialist range.

When I play friendly games, I hardly use my CPs. Some pre game relics, and then rerolls for whatever. I kinda hate how any competitive list needs a set order of Stratagems to unlock some hidden potential game killer.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
When I play friendly games, I hardly use my CPs. Some pre game relics, and then rerolls for whatever. I kinda hate how any competitive list needs a set order of Stratagems to unlock some hidden potential game killer.

I always want to max out relics and warlord traits.

Bad mechanic, badly implemented.

No, I don't like them. Most of the reasons have already been covered by other people already. I far preferred it when you knew what a unit could do just from looking at its datasheet. And if you wanted to make it better you spent points on wargear, or things like Veteran Skills, Marks, Biomorph Enhancements, or Exarch Abilities, which your opponent knew about because they were on your army list. So they knew which unit could do what, instead of any unit being capable of getting a boost at any time because you spent some nebulous resource points on it.

 Amishprn86 wrote:

Umbros wrote:
AOS does it much much better.

A set of generic command abilities that can be applied to any unit (if in range of a character/leader), that offer tactical flexibility, at a cost. Everyone shares the abilities, they offer play and counterplay. Not reliant on memorising pages of them.

AoS did for sure hit it out of the park with their CP system. But it would be very hard to do that to 40k.

It wouldn't, at all. How in the world would it be hard?
There's a much smaller pool of command points on a per turn basis, and plenty of characters and unit leaders to spend them. Make them appropriate to the units rather than massive game changing stuff like fight twice or shoot twice (or stupid gotcha crap), and its just a matter of tweaking specific mechanics at a cost.

Slightly annoyed that things that should be general wargear/upgrades (melta-bombs etc), general abilities (overwatch for ex), or unit specific abilities take tge form of strats,

Otherwise I don't really feel one way or another about them.